The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 7February 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am.

National Flag (Public Buildings)

Mr Speaker: Mr Dodds asked me yesterday to rule on the issue of flags. He was seeking reassurances about their display. He stated that on 17January the First Minister had undertaken that the matter would be resolved before the next designated flag day. The Minister asked what could be done and when the First Minister would be required to advise the Assembly of his intentions.
I have reread the Hansard report of the First Minister’s speech. While he gave an undertaking that the matter would be addressed in subsequent weeks and months by the Executive and the Assembly, he did not, as recorded, give any date for its resolution. The normal and most obvious means of pursuing a matter of this sort is through questions.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to what MrDodds said yesterday afternoon. While making a point of order, he alleged that I was urging Ministers to breach their ministerial code. You may have had a chance to read the Hansard report of what I said. It is recorded on page 372. It is clear that MrDodds’s allegation is totally without substance. I hope that you, MrSpeaker, can, within order, give MrDodds an opportunity to apologise for yet another false accusation.

Mr Speaker: It is normal practice that a Member who has been referred to is given an the opportunity to respond. I will happily give MrDodds an opportunity to respond to what has just been said. He may wish to put his point of order in that context.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I may take another opportunity to do that.
I would like to thank the First Minister for giving me yet another opportunity to speak on this issue. He has been very indulgent over the last couple of days, giving us such opportunities to reinforce our policy. [Interruption]
The First Minister should calm down and not get edgy. It is a time for cool heads and rational debate.
This is an opportunity to make a point about the sort of debate that goes on here between a First Minister and another Minister in the Executive. Where else in Western democracy would one find such a situation on the Floor of a legislative Assembly? This illustrates the kind of devolution that Northern Ireland has. Ministers are not bound by any sort of collective responsibility, in the way that Ministers at Westminster are. We have a First Minister rising to attack another Minister in his Administration — supposedly. That calls into question —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am dealing with the point of order, MrSpeaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.
The opportunity for response in this context is not an opportunity for a speech. It is an opportunity either to withdraw the comment or to say that it is not being withdrawn. I am not clear from the Member’s remarks whether he is withdrawing his comment. Perhaps he will respond to that. If he wishes, I will then give him a point of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am leading up to that.
The First Minister has on previous occasions referred to the matter of members of the Executive informing their parties about Executive business. This is not the first time. [Interruption]
Some Members need to calm down. MrSpeaker, I must ask you to call for order.

Mr Speaker: The order is that this matter will be set to the side. It is essentially one for the Executive and not for the Floor of this House, as the Member has just pointed out. If it is not going to be dealt with in the next 10 to 15 seconds we will simply move on.

Mr Nigel Dodds: This was raised, on a point of order, by the First Minister, and you, Sir, have asked me to respond, as is my right.
Executive confidentiality is part of the ministerial code. The FirstMinister is on record as having several times urged members of the DUP to breach that code.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am going to rule on the matter. The opportunity to respond when a Member’s comments are taken up in this way is not an opportunity to make a speech or an argument, particularly when the dispute is between members of the Executive.
We will not proceed any further with this matter. We clearly have different views on what was being addressed.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am going to be extremely wary about taking points of order which can only hold up our proceeding to your debate.

Mr Sammy Wilson: You do not know whether I have —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have a fair degree of insight into what may be going on.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is it in order for the First Minister to mislead the House —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order at all. This question of misleading the House is becoming a piece of nonsense.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The First Minister put to you what he described as a point of order. Was it a point of order or not?

Mr Speaker: If I were to rule out of order every comment described as a point of order, there would be a great deal of — [Interruption]

Mr Nigel Dodds: Then let Sammy speak. You ruled him out—

Mr Speaker: I let him speak on what was clearly not a point of order, and there should not be too many complaints about that.

Mr Peter Robinson: Reference has been made to some ministerial code. Has any such a code ever been brought to the Assembly? Does it have any standing here?

Mr Speaker: That is a matter for members of the Executive to resolve among themselves. I should think that it may involve some discussion.
We must now proceed.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Further to your original ruling —

Mr Speaker: I am not going to take any further points of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: You are not taking the point of order?

Mr Speaker: No.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On what grounds?

Mr Speaker: The Speaker has every right to decide not to take points of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: This is a different point of order.

Mr Speaker: I am not taking the point of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Even if it is on another issue?

Mr Speaker: I am not taking the point of order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On what grounds are you refusing to take the point of order?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. It is perfectly in order for the Speaker to refuse to take a point of order, particularly if he believes that the points of order procedure is being abused. I will find myself requiring every Member who stands to make a point of order to state exactly which Standing Order he is invoking. I have every reason to believe that the points of order procedure is being abused.

Sinn Féin: Motion for Exclusion

The following motion stood on the Order Paper in the names of Rev Dr Ian Paisley and MrPRobinson:
This House resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and, therefore, consistent with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, determines that members of Sinn Féin shall be excluded from holding office as Ministers for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution.

Mr Speaker: While giving notice of a motion for exclusion under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has no specific requirements, the moving of such a motion requires that one of three criteria be met. These criteria are set out in the Act. As I have received no notice under paragraph (b) or (c) of section 30(5), I shall invite the proposer to provide evidence that the section 30(5)(a) criterion is met. I will accept either written notice bearing the signatures of 30 Members or the support of 30 Members demonstrated by their rising in their places, or a combination of both.
If this criterion is met, the motion may be moved and the debate will proceed forthwith. If the criterion is not met, the motion cannot be moved and will therefore fall. I have here the signatures of 29 Members. I therefore call on DrPaisley or MrRobinson to satisfy the requirement in section 30(5)(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr Speaker, you have received a motion signed by 29 Members. As I understand their position, it would be totally inconsistent for Ulster Unionist Members not to stand in favour of this. Given the opportunity, I think, at least one of them would be prepared to stand by their election manifesto and what they have said over the last few days.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have asked the proposer — I am prepared, through my generosity, to accept either of the proposers — to indicate that they can fulfil the requirements. I am not clear, from what you have said, that you are in a position to do so.

Mr Peter Robinson: I believe that you will be clear if you give Members an opportunity to stand and be counted.

Mr Speaker: I have asked, and there is no indication that the movers are able to fulfil the requirement. The motion cannot, therefore, be moved, so it falls.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do you know? If you give Members the opportunity to stand, 30 may do so.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is incorrect. It is for the mover to demonstrate — not for the Speaker to facilitate. Were the mover to indicate that he could demonstrate, I would then call for all those Members. But I have had no such indication.
That is the question I asked, but, instead of a positive response, I was given a short speech.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members assumed that there would be some consistency in your rulings. On the previous occasion you did exactly what we are now asking.

Mr Speaker: That was pre-devolution. [Interruption]
Order. It is perfectly clear what the earlier points of order were for. Knowing that they were not going to be able to propose their motion, Members raised a series of points of order. They are fortunate to have a psychiatrist in the Chair. [Interruption]
Order. The situation is clear. The proposers do not have the support required under the NorthernIreland Act1998. The motion therefore falls.
Adjourned at 10.42 am.